Comparing Cesare Lombroso and Edwin Sutherland and Their Competing Ideologies - Term Paper Example

 Comparing 2 key thinkers and their competing ideologies Introduction Criminology infers a body of knowledge that explores delinquency and crime as a social phenomenon. Criminology encompasses the scientific study of enacting laws, violating laws and reacting towards the violation of the set laws. Making, breaking, and reacting to laws form the basis of criminology. The paper examines two key thinkers in criminology, in this case Cesare Lombroso and Edwin Sutherland, together with their competing ideologies. The underpinning and competing notion in both thinkers centre on the assumption “criminals are born and not made,” or vice Versa. Cesare Lombroso Lombroso was a prominent Italian criminologist towards the end of the 19th Century in the arena of pathologically determined deviance. Lombroso’s emphasis on the scientific method and his revolutionary approach earned him the title “father” of scientific criminology. Lombroso prominent works include The Criminal Man (1876) and Crime, Its Causes and Remedies (1899). Lombroso idea’s contradicted the prevailing notion that crime was part of society, and thus should be accepted as an intrinsic factor of social conditions (Carrabine 2009, p.58). Lombroso rejected classical School assertions that crime was a typical trait of human nature and that rational choices formed the bedrock of behaviour. Lombroso attempted to discern a probable relationship between criminal psychopathology and physical or constitutional defects. The principal contention revolved around the presence of a hereditary or atavistic division of criminals comprising of biological throwbacks to primitive stage of human evolution (Lily, Cullen and Ball 2011, p.15). Lombroso rejected the notion of free will and equality in which individuals were purported to exercise rational choices to engage in crime as advocated by classists. Lombroso advocated the assumption of determinism. Lombroso applied scientific approaches and concepts derived from physiognomy, social Darwinism, early eugenics, and psychiatry. The approaches stipulated that criminality was inherited and “born criminal” could be apparent by physical defects, which validated criminals as “savage.” Although, the stipulated physical characteristics identifying criminals is no longer considered valid; nevertheless, the notion that definite factors incline certain individuals to commit crime continues to be the underpinning of criminology (Hayward, Maruna and Mooney 2010, p.25). Lombroso groundbreaking work, The Criminal Man (1876), alleged that criminals possessed a distinct physical characteristic that set them apart from non criminals. In his works, Lombroso claimed that anatomical investigations of the post-mortem bodies of criminals divulged that they were physically different from ordinary persons. Thus, it was possible to identity individuals with a predisposition to criminality by simply reading their bodies. Lombroso maintained that criminals exhibit signs, which consist of anomalous dimensions of the skull and facial appearance. Lombroso even went to the extent that criminals bear diverse physical characteristics, which one could discern (Treawell 2006, p.28). The concept of Atavism Lombroso applied this term for persons who were not fully evolved. Lombroso applied the term “atavism” to describe the appearance of those similar to ancestral, pre-human forms of life. Lombroso perceived the persons to be “throwbacks” to earlier forms of man or primates. According to Lombroso, “born criminals” embody a representation of human sub species (McLaughlin, Muncie and Hughes 2005, p.47). In his later writings, Lombroso began to consider criminals less as evolutionary throwbacks and more in terms of detained development and degeneracy. Criminology Lombroso came up with the notion of a “born criminal” via biological determinism, whereby he argued that criminals have certain physiognomic attributes. According to Lombroso, while most individuals had evolved, the violent criminal had devolved, and hence constituted a societal or evolutionary regression. The anomalies (stigmata) named by Lombroso, could be expressed in terms of anomalous forms or dimensions of the skull and jaw, as well as asymmetries in the face and other parts of the body. Nevertheless, the stated associations were later demonstrated to be significantly inconsistent or plainly inexistent. Besides atavistic stigmata, Lombroso highlighted other types of criminals, which included the insane criminal and the “criminaloid.” According to him, insane criminals such as kleptomaniacs and child molesters bear some stigmata; however, they were not born criminals and only became criminals owing to an adjustment of the brain, which upsets their moral nature. Criminaloids did not manifest any physical peculiarities of the born or insane criminal and became involved in crime later in life, and bore an inclination to commit less severe crimes. Female Criminality Lombroso concluded that female criminals were rare and exhibited minor signs of degeneration since they had “evolved less compared to men, owing to the inactive nature of their lives.” According to Lombroso, women’s intrinsic passivity prevented them from committing crimes since they did not “have the intelligence and initiative to turn out to be criminals” (Lombroso & Ferrero 2004, p.143). In summary, he concluded that most women are not criminals, and few of them are frequently occasional criminals (Cullen 2010, p.565). Although, Lombroso theories were prominent in Europe for some period, his proposition on hereditary causes of crimes was dropped in favour of environmental factors. Lombroso’s research attracted criticism for its methodology, sources, the individualistic fallacy, and his application of statistics. Besides his contribution to criminology, Lombroso attempted to reform the Italian penal system whereby he advocated for humane and constructive treatment of convicts via application of work programs directed at making the convicts productive members of the society. Edwin Sutherland Edwin Sutherland’s biggest contribution to criminology centres on his differential association theory. The outstanding proposition in the theory is that crime is learned; people learn how to commit crimes, as well as why crime is a viable course of action. Hence, criminal behaviour and cognitions behind it are learned. Sutherland is renowned for having introduced the concept of white-collar crime. White-collar crime detailed crime committed by an individual of respectability and high status in the course of the individual’s occupation. The concept of white-collar crime contradicted the prevailing prejudices that aristocrats could not engage in crime. Sutherland believed that conservative generalizations concerning crime and criminality are invalid because they pursue crime of the lower classes (Gaylord & Galliher 1994, p.4). The concept flows from the question of why certain normal learned behaviours were labelled criminal, while others legal. The concept of white-collar crime contradicted the prevailing prejudices that aristocrats could not engage in crime. This was grounded in an ancient legal perception “a king could not commit a crime.” Sutherland pursued an expansion of the definition of crime beyond the prevalent belief that crime was in essence an activity, predominantly violent, commissioned by members of the socio-economic under class (Siegel 2011, p.443). Sutherland’s theory of criminology detailed postulates such as criminal behaviour is learned through interaction with other persons in the process of communication; the chief component of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate person group. Differential association may differ depending on frequency, duration, priority, intensity, and the process of learning criminal behaviour hinges on association between criminal and anti-criminal patterns (Sutherland, Ray & Luckenbill 1992, p.3). Sutherland’s leading works, Criminology (1924), outlined the principle of differential association. The third edition of the book re-titled Principles of Criminology (1939) outlined that the development of habitual patterns of criminality stemmed from the association with those who commit crime instead of those who are not criminals. The theory stipulated that conflict, and social disorganization exhibited fundamental causes of crime as they dictated the patterns of individuals associated with it (Sutherland 1983, p.4). Sutherland had a strong conviction that social class was an essential factor in the commission of a crime. Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory is his finest sociological contribution to criminology and matches, in significance, to other theories such as strain theory and social control theory. The theory stipulates that social life is not disorganized but patterned via learned behaviour. Thus, individuals’ engagement in deviant acts flows from legitimate world, although in a negative context. Sutherland stipulated that deviance is learned via interaction with other deviant persons (Carrabine 2009, p.78). Sutherland claimed that, through interaction, criminals learn techniques of certain crimes, as well as other aspects such as rationale and motivation of crime. The associations to crime vary according to elements such as frequency, duration, and intensity. Sutherland’s differential association theory outlined why criminals are inclined towards deviant behaviour. Edwin Sutherland pioneering work in criminology contributed to expanding of people’s understanding of crime. His theory of differential association, which is popular among contemporary criminologists due to its simplicity and coherence, laid the foundation of subsequent social learning theories. Sutherland differential association theory spotlights how individuals learn to become criminals and does not concern itself with the question of why they become criminals in the first place. Sutherland failed to explain the development of the first criminal and why certain people with an excessive exposure to criminal behaviour patterns failed to commit crimes. One of the prominent critiques to differential association theory is inspired by the fact that individuals can be independent and rational actors. In addition, the theory disregards personality traits that might influence an individual’s susceptibility to the environmental influences. In order to commit crimes, individuals learn motives, drives, attitudes, and rationalizations, which ease commission of a crime (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner 2002, p.733). The background of this assertion is processes of cultural transmission and construction. As a result, individuals may respond differently to a similar circumstance depending on how their experience influences them to characterize their present surrounding. Comparative Analysis of Lombroso and Sutherland’s Theoretical Approaches to Criminology Sutherland’s approach to criminology opposed the dominant biological and psychological explanations to criminal behaviour. Sutherland maintained that criminal behaviour is itself a product of normal learning via social interaction. Lombroso, on the other hand, concluded that the chief cause of criminal tendencies was organic in nature; heredity was the fundamental origin of deviance. Lombroso’s biological positivism detailed discriminatory ideas concerning issues such as race, sex, and gender. Positivism infers that human actions are largely determined by forces beyond an individual’s control and that individual’s are compelled into criminal activities owing to biological, sociological, psychological factors, much of which are outside individual complete control. Lombroso’s work was based on determinism, which infers that an individual’s lifestyle or actions stem from genetic inheritance or biological predisposition (Barak 2009, p.203). Sutherland’s differential association theory on crime stipulated that criminality emanates from engagement in appropriate behaviours exhibited by people whom they interact. Sutherland’s differential association theory explained deviance in terms of individual’s social relationships. Sutherland’s theory was a radical shift from the pathological perspective and biological perspectives, since it attributed the cause of crime to the social context of individuals. Sutherland rejected biological determinism such as Lombroso’s assertions of born criminals, excessive individualism of psychiatry, and economic explanations of crime. According to Sutherland, not a single individual is born with a criminal intent. In his analysis of white-collar crime, Sutherland attributed the cause of crime to social phenomena instead of “received” biological and emotional characteristics borne by the criminal. This contradicts Lombrosian view of criminality, which stipulated physical peculiarities as a sign of criminality. Overtime, Lombroso incorporated the view that social factors exerted some influence on the causation of crime and that not all criminality is inborn. Lombroso laid a platform on which theories grounded in environmental causation of criminality became dominant. Sutherland’s differential association theory contradicted classical and biological theories and posed no apparent threats to the humane treatment of persons identified as criminals. The principle of differential association theory advocates that individuals become deviant owing to an “excess” of definitions approving a breach of law over definitions adverse to violation of law. Hence, criminal behaviour is aroused when an individual is exposed to more social messages favouring conduct rather than pro social messages. Sutherland predicted that an individual will most likely choose the criminal path when the balance of definition for violation of law exceeded those for law breaking (Teeter 2010, p.23). Sutherland believed that an individual’s association hinges on the general context of social organization. According to him, crime was a consequence of opposing values, whereby individuals with an excess of criminal definitions will be more susceptible to new forms of criminal definitions and that individuals will manifest low reception to anti criminal definitions. Conclusion Although early biological theories such as Lombroso’s determinism theory lacked validity, the theories were the pioneers in the application of scientific method. Lombroso and Sutherland made remarkable contributions to Sociology as a scientific enterprise whose aim was to understand and control social problems. Sutherland’s theory of differential association can be considered as indispensable in explaining peer influence among deviant youths. References List Barak, G. (2009). Criminology: an integrated approach, Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield. pp.203-206. Carrabine, E. (2009). Criminology: A sociological introduction, Oxon, Routledge. pp. 58-80. Cullen, F. (2010). Encyclopedia of criminology theory, Volume1, London, Sage. pp.562-565. Gaylord, M. & Galliher, J. (1994). The criminology of Edwin Sutherland, New Jersey, New Brunswick. pp.4-6. Hayward, K. Maruna, S & Mooney, J. (2010). Fifty Key Thinkers in Criminology, London, Routledge. pp.25-28. Lombroso, C. & Ferrero, G. (2004). Criminal Women, the prostitute, and the normal woman, Edited by Rafter, N and Gibson, M, Durham, Duke University Press. pp.143. Lily, J.R. Cullen, F. and Ball, R. (2011), Criminological Theory: context and consequences 5th edition, London, Sage. pp.15-25. Maguire, M. & Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd Edition, Oxford, OUP. pp.733. McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J. & Hughes, G. (2005). Criminological perspectives: Essential readings, London, Sage. pp.47-52. Siegel, L. (2011). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies, Belmont, Wadsworth. pp.443-445. Sutherland, E. (1983). White Collar Crime: the uncut version, London, Yale University Press. pp.4. Sutherland, E., Ray, C. & Luckenbill, D. (1992). Principles of Criminology, Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield. pp.3. Teeter, B. (2010). Theoretically speaking: A look into crime, New York, Taylor & Francis. pp.23-29. Treawell, J. (2006). Criminology, London Sage. Pp.28-29. Read More